Posted
by
samzenpus
on Sunday July 29, 2012 @09:20AM
from the have-a-read dept.

Nerdfest writes "The lawyers behind the upcoming Apple v. Samsung trial have been hard at work filing docket after docket as their court battle looms closer, and many of those dockets have just been released to the public. We're now seeing a lot of previously secret information about the early days of iPhone and iPad R&D, and what's happened behind closed doors at both Apple and Samsung. Surprises include the iPhone design being 'inspired' by Sony product ideas, and that Samsung was warned that it was copying Apple."

They might be part of the Android licensing deal where MS demanded royalties or licensing deals from the phone manufacturers. At the time most of them were dropping WinMo in favor of Android. My understanding was the deal was that they made WP7 phones and paid a fee for every Android phone or MS would go after them for patents. Motorola was the one that didn't agree and there is a MS-Motorola lawsuit.

It's quite possible that it's tied in to some kind of WP7 deal, such that Microsoft will ignore Android patents for Samsung, providing Samsung continues to manufacture WP7 phones, and may have WP7 license fees waved or some such thing.

Samsung's Windows Phones probably make them so little money that it wouldn't even be worth doing relative to the massive success of their Android phones unless there was some kind of incentive. Their time would probably be better spent just focussing 100% on Android for their

The Prada came out only 4 months before the iPhone, furthermore that tells you nothing about previous research or patent applications. If Apple had iPad prototypes as early as 2004, imagine when they started to think about and patent iPhone designs, especially considering that the first iPhone concept is from 1983 (totally different from what it is now, but serves to show just how long Apple has been thinking about the iPhone)...

Meaning that we must conclude either that the iPhone is a copy of the Prada OR we must conceed tha tsimiolar goals and same technology lead to naturally similar designs.

I don't see how the former could be feasible considering the timeframe. Regarding the latter, don't blame the players, blame the game.

Either way, Apple is left with no justification of their lawsuits or theie yelling "Mine Mine Mine!" Daffy Duck like.

They aren't suing LG as far as I know, so I don't see the relation, and there's strong evidence pointing to Samsung having actually and knowingly copied Apple's designs. Plus as I mention what matters are the dates in which patents are filed, not the time products come out. Once you file an application for a patent you can pretty much assume that it's public knowledge.

You see no relation whatsoever to Apple's product bearing a remarkable (and I'm sure Apple will claim, harmless) resemblance to an earlier LG product and Samsung's product bearing a resemblance to Apples (Which Samsung claims is harmless)?

You can see no reason at all that might weaken Apples claims in the slightest?

And, I will note that a game only exists if there are players. If I hate the game, I fully reserve the right to hate the player for keeping it alive.

As for timing, a patent claim is invalidated by prior art. It does matter if a design existed elsewhere before the patent was filed.

The sdesigns we are seeing ALL reflect images of future technology dating back to the 1960s. None of them have the right to lay claim on the design as far as I can see. The only reason we didn't see these designs in products in the '60s is that we had to wait for the general state of technology to catch up with the vision.

You see no relation whatsoever to Apple's product bearing a remarkable (and I'm sure Apple will claim, harmless) resemblance to an earlier LG product and Samsung's product bearing a resemblance to Apples (Which Samsung claims is harmless)?

No, because it would be unfeasible for Apple to copy LG in such a short amount of time, not to mention that the Prada never received a lot of attention thus making it even less reasonable for Apple to copy it specifically. Samsung, in the other hand, changed the design of

You are not hating Apple because of how they do business, you are hating Apple because unlike others they are open about it, you are hating Apple because they're honest.

This is either a fanboy or a shill comment. If you seriously believe it's neither, you're the former.

Seriously, Apple have been abusing patent law for their gain for a while now. You can claim patent law is broken (which it is), and you can claim that their patents are legally valid (which at least some of them are, others are questionable), and you can claim all their competitors are doing the same (which they are, some less aggressively though). However, claiming Apple are being honest and not engaging in anti-competitive patent hoarding and suing is flat out false. Yes, lots of other companies do the same, some are worse, some are better.

It does not matter whether SONY actually released the particular product in the market or not. The bottom line is Apple's claim that they have come up with an "entirely original" idea that never existed before does not hold water. If anyone is going to design a new touch screen only phone / tablet, there is not much one can do. They cant Patent a rounded rectangle and assert it to prevent competition in the market and escape the microscopic examination of others.

Apple keeps parading the image of before / after iPhone cellphones, where it claims that all cellphones before iPhone were flip / qwerty and candybar and touchscreens did not exist at all (which is a lie). There were many PDA phones before the first ever iPhone in 2007. Even without the iPhone touchscreen phones would have come in the market.http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_p910-846.php [gsmarena.com] (one cant argue that size of this phone would have never shrunk with time and with advances in technology)

Heck I had a Sony K750 [gsmarena.com] phone (with a camera flash) and it is also a black square rectangle candy bar with a color LCD screen with a chrome bezel around the phone. It did not have a large touchscreen because those were too expensive at the time. The fact is cellph

Actually no. It can be argued that Apple didn't have good results in their litigation, especially outside US. Most of their claims are of patents they filled of designs and concepts that either shouldn't be patented, because they were too general, or that had prior art. Additionally they got the reputation of patent trolls, which will hunt them sooner or later in courts, as judges start to get fed of it.

It's only naive if you operate under the illusion that other companies don't engage in similar behavior. Refraining from engaging in said behavior is not naive, it's acting in a reasonable and ethical manner.

4. What is a surprise is that Sony didn't patent their design so they could be suing Apple right now for lifting it.

Not really a surprise if you read the Samsung filing. Apple didn't copy a design that they saw from Sony. An interview with a Sony designer described a concept for a phone that fit in the hand, had rounded corners, and a lack of buttons on the front of the device. Based on this, an Apple designer created a concept design of what this Sony phone would look like. Just to be clear - the screenshots that people will be posting links to in comments during the coming months are screen shots created by Apple. These are not designs that Sony created, although many posters will have that misunderstanding.

It will be very tempting for people to make posts saying "how can Apple sue Samsung for rounded corners when they stole the idea from Sony.". These comments will be modded highly, as there is a common misconception on slashdot that Apple has sued Samsung for rounded corners. Rather, Apple has sued Samsung for combining so many visual and behavioral elements from the iPhone and iPad that they have obviously ripped off the design. Any one of these elements in isolation does not infringe on the design, it is the sum of so many similarities. So many similarities, in fact, that Google actually demanded that Samsung alter their design.

It will be very tempting for people to make posts saying "how can Apple sue Samsung for rounded corners when they stole the idea from Sony.". These comments will be modded highly, as there is a common misconception on slashdot that Apple has sued Samsung for rounded corners. Rather, Apple has sued Samsung for combining so many visual and behavioral elements from the iPhone and iPad that they have obviously ripped off the design. Any one of these elements in isolation does not infringe on the design, it is the sum of so many similarities. So many similarities, in fact, that Google actually demanded that Samsung alter their design

Very much this. This one paragraph distills the annoyance I have with a number of vocal Slashdotters who have tried to oversimplify their hate of Apple into a meme of rounded rectangular corners. Come on folks, even the most VBasic-crippled, 10E6 numbered poster can figure out the logical constructs of an AND statement....

The point is that Apple ripped off the flat front AND the lack of buttons AND the big touchscreen AND the grid of icons AND slide to unlock AND rounded corners AND the rest of it from other people too. The iPhone looks very much like the LG Prada, and the iPad looks very much like a number of tablet-like photo frames that Samsung made. Many of Apple's designs looks very much like Braun designs from the 70s and 80s.

There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is then turning round and saying that Samsung

For a start, it shows how Samsung's design radically changed from F700 to Galaxy S (I mean, check it, icons are now in color AND there's color silver appearing on the border now). Also, their marking is incosistent, half of things they crossed out on F700 seems like were crossed just because nobody would bother to check what's written there (really, "The color black appears on the front of the deviceabove and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners of the device." doesn't apply to F700?)

Now there's how specific are tablet related claims:

One question. Why did Apple themselves REMOVE the F700 from their filings?

Here's why:

Apple lawyer #1: Your honour, we'd like to draw your attention to the F700 which is clearly a copy of the iPhoneApple lawyer #2: Errr... A moment your honour... [nudges lawyer 1] "(actually the F700 was before the iPhone 1)"Apple lawyer #1: Your honour, we'd like to have the F700 excluded from these proceedings as it is not relevant

Rather, Apple has sued Samsung for combining so many visual and behavioral elements from the iPhone and iPad that they have obviously ripped off the design.

Do you have any link to documents that back that up?here (pdf) [groklaw.net] is the actual Apple filing. Reading it tells us that, although Apple is attempting to imply what you are saying, the actual court case comes down to their design patents. i.e. "rectangle with rounded corners" not the combination of behavioural elements from the iPhone/iPad as you are claiming.

As people have noted here many times, there are plenty of smart phones created before the advent of the iPhone with many of the same elements that t

That's right. As it seems,Apple did this: They copied Sony's idea based on their description of a product, not any real product, then patented the design as if they had invented it themselves as something genuinely new, and then sued Samsung for damages, claiming that it took them millions of dollars of R&D costs to come up with the design and the product specifications in the first place.

I hate to be pedantic, but you don't file a docket. The docket is the schedule / container for legal filings. Rather, I believe the proper term would be brief in this case. You can also file other things such as suits, claims and motions.

Guys- is it ever any surprise that apple copies a design? They design well, but that is because all of their work is second generation. They take a concept then make it shiny, and sell it. They don't make concepts. Hell- the apple 2 was literally a XEROX!

Have you actually used/seen a Xerox system. I bet you hadn't as Xerox had great ideas however they still had a long way to go. What Apple paid for and got was use of the ideas. For example
one Apple engineer struggled with overlapping windows and couldn't figure out how Xerox did it. Finally he implemented on how own. A year later, he was able to ask a Xerox engineer how they did it. It turns out that they didn't for the version they saw. They had ideas but Xerox didn't get it to work right and so pulle

"use of the ideas" = "copying the ideas"
Apple copied the xerox concept, then made it shiny. That's what they do. I didn't say they did it illegally, not that people at PARC were bloody happy about having all of their work taken to the market without them.

Xerox had a GUI but built on their own systems with Mesa. Apple implemented their own version on their own hardware with assembly; however, Xerox's system was very much a prototype. A lot of things in the Mac was not done in Xerox's system. It wasn't just about "shiny". Overlapping windows, drag and drop are just two things Xerox did not do. Of course from your angle, Apple just copied Xerox. History and facts disagree with you.

My point is you can't tell the difference between concept (which was never released) and an actual working product. Computing history is filled with lots of vaporware and concepts that never made it. It takes a great deal of work to get something to work. But you don't want to give Apple any credit for implementing actual working systems. You would rather lump everything into "shiny" category than admit that Apple does engineering to get their products to market.

I'm not speaking ill of apple, I'm just calling it what it is. Apple doesn't come up with new concepts, it just improves upon existing ones. The problem with that is that innovation stagnates, and you're left with a 10-20 year period in which there is nothing but incremental upgrade because no one has any new ideas.

Calling implementing a working product the same as adding "shiny" does speak ill of Apple. It doesn't give them any credit for doing real work. I can come up with a holographic UI concept. I can never implement it. It's not shiny if someone actually makes a system work.

I'm an engineer myself. I'm not going to make light of the process of making an idea function. But the simple truth is- Xerox DID make it work. The palo alto research center had an entire network of what were essentially modern computers in 1979. They created the GUI, ethernet, network printers, object oriented programming, bitmaps, and many other important advances.
Have whatever opinion you want, but we're arguing over historical fact here.

Xerox made a basic concept work. They didn't make it complete. Again, I can prototype a holographic UI system. It will never actually work in real life. Could Xerox have made a working, selling product had their bosses realized what the potential PARC ideas had? Probably. But historical fact is that they did not.

No you said anything Apple did to make something work was basically "shiny" and dismissing any real work they did to get a system from concept to working product. Minority Report has a concept of a holographic UI. Okay anyone who makes it work is only contributing to "shiny" according to you.

The concept of the Ethernet was developed by Metcalfe at PARC. Metcalfe left PARC to form 3Com which helped it make it a standard. But all 3Com did was to add "shiny" to it according to you.

A picture of the Alto. Yes a picture of a demo model == full working system. Here's a picture of a holographic UI [weareorganizedchaos.com]. I'm sure a system exists today right? But please don't do any research [folklore.org] into the history of the two:

Smalltalk had a three-button mouse and pop-up menus, in contrast to the Mac's menu bar and one-button mouse. Smalltalk didn't even have self-repairing windows - you had to click in them to get them to repaint, and programs couldn't draw into partially obscured windows. Bill Atkinson did not know this, so he invented regions as the basis of QuickDraw and the Window Manager so that he could quickly draw in covered windows and repaint portions of windows brought to the front. One Macintosh feature identical to a Smalltalk feature is selection-based modeless text editing with cut and paste, which was created by Larry Tesler for his Gypsy editor at PARC.

As you may be gathering, the difference between the Xerox system architectures and Macintosh architecture is huge

Or even read wikipedia

The following description is based primarily on the August 1976 Alto Hardware Manual by Xerox PARC. . ..The Alto was never a commercial product, although over two thousand were built. . . In December 1979, Apple Computer's co-founder Steve Jobs visited Xerox PARC, where he was shown the Smalltalk-80 programming environment . ..integrated it first into the Lisa and then in the Macintosh, attracting several key researchers to work in his company. . . In 1980–1981, Xerox Altos were used by engineers at PARC and at the Xerox System Development Department to design the Xerox Star workstations.

Xerox had the concepts for several years before Apple. They never made it into a product. The Star was finally a product but not a standalone that the Lisa and the Mac was.

That is how Apple fanboys describe things. If Apple has it and someone else doesn't, it is the key defining feature that makes it the greatest "innovation" ever, and completely original. If someone else has it and Apple doesn't, it is a minor, inconsequential part that could hardly be called a feature. In this thread, it is suggested that Samsung copied Apple, even though iPhone doesn't do widgets. Then in another post it is suggested that Apple didn't copy Xerox because Xerox didn't have overlapping windows.

I never called it the greatest innovation ever. I merely said Apple used ideas from Xerox; however, the Xerox concept was not complete. It was a prototype. Apple actually implemented a working product.

Then in another post it is suggested that Apple didn't copy Xerox because Xerox didn't have overlapping windows.

And you missed the entire point. If you a using a GUI instead of a command line, things like overlapping windows and drag and drop are essential. Apple implemented these things in a shipping product. Xerox as a concept did not.

No Apple is suing for two reasons: They believe that Samsung deliberately copied their design patents down to the packaging design. And they also believe others infringed (HTC, Motorola) on their functional patents. People can disagree whether these things are true but most here reduce both sets of claims down to single points.

Well, I think you are confusing some things. I am no big fan of apple but I think it is worth correcting some things that have been said. First of all, xerox is a company not a product. One of the big achievements of Xerox was the alto, an early and capable gui system. Macintosh copied heavily the ideas of the alto, however apple ][ was released before the Macintosh. Apple ][ was a console system. The alto was a "lisp" machine, where the Macintosh was programmed in assembler to be able to run on the much sl

My understanding was that Xerox used their own language called Mesa which was object oriented. Also Apple got permissions from Xerox corporate to use the ideas for which they paid in Apple stock. The PARC guys thought it was a bad idea; however, Xerox was so focused on copiers that they never understood the potential of it and other things like Ethernet, the mouse, OO programming, etc.

Well, I think you are confusing some things. I am no big fan of apple but I think it is worth correcting some things that have been said. First of all, xerox is a company not a product. One of the big achievements of Xerox was the alto, an early and capable gui system. Macintosh copied heavily the ideas of the alto, however apple ][ was released before the Macintosh. Apple ][ was a console system. The alto was a "lisp" machine, where the Macintosh was programmed in assembler to be able to run on the much slower hardware. Big differences.

Cheers,
-S

Um, the CPU in the 128k Mac and the Lisa was the same 8 MHz MC68000. And the Lisa and Mac were both "programmed" in a combination of Smalltalk, Pascal, and 68k Assembler.

Not really true... a few concepts came from Xerox, the mouse, pop up menus, and windows... sure... and that's about it... most of the good stuff was originally designed by the folks at Apple. Here's the truth, if you really care about truth and aren't just pilling on trolls.

Guys- is it ever any surprise that apple copies a design? They design well, but that is because all of their work is second generation. They take a concept then make it shiny, and sell it. They don't make concepts. Hell- the apple 2 was literally a XEROX!

Wow. Are we so far out in computing history that we don't remember the difference between an Apple ][ [digibarn.com] (designed in 1976 and first sold by Apple in 1977), and the Lisa [digibarn.com] (first designed by Apple in 1978 and first sold by Apple in 1981)?

And oh, BTW, Apple didn't "copy Xerox" [obamapacman.com]. Apple was shown some technology that Xerox PARC was working on, then they started riffing on it, bringing many improvements. Then, Apple LICENSED the tech from Xerox.

Going by Apple's logic, their version of "inspiration" is removing the slider from the SONY concept phone and making the front all touch (removing the silver buttons). With these two basic modifications, there is no difference between the SONY concept phone of 2006 and the iPhone 4 of 2010. I fail to see why does Apple have double standards when treating with the issue when Samsung / Motorola and HTC are concerned. (rather all popular Android manufacturers)

The industry was already gravitating towards touch screen phones in 2007. The technology was not ready earlier in terms of CPU power, price/performance ratio and OS maturity for touch only phones to be popular mainstream phones. Apple was the first to released a polished product, granted. But, Apple is behaving as if it owns all rights to a touch screen phone / tablet, which I find ridiculous.

With these two basic modifications, there is no difference between the SONY concept phone of 2006 and the iPhone 4 of 2010

This is what I claim. I never claimed that the first iPhone of 2007 was a copy of the SONY concept phone.

I am not even sure that the SONY concept phone is actually dated 2006. But, that is not the point. The basic point is the industry was anyways gravitating towards touch enabled phones. There had been many PDA phones (with no keyboard) before the first ever iPhone. So, at best Apple can only claim to have accelerated the era or touchscreen phones.

macs4all:Do you REALLY think that Apple designed and built the iPhone in ONE YEAR?!?

Well, I guess we can tell who's never worked on a REAL product design...

And if you had bothered to read TFA

In February 2006, before the claimed iPhone design was conceived, Apple executive Tony Fadell circulated a news article to Steve Jobs, Jonathan Ive and others. In the article, a Sony designer discussed Sony designs for portable electronic devices that lacked buttons and other excessive ornamentation, and fit in the hand.......

According to Nishibori's testimony, his design changed the course of the iPhone project, and pointed it toward the iPhone of today.

So, guess what, it was really ONE YEAR, based on a testimony of Apple's own designers. I believe there is no doubt that the Apple designer Nishibori has worked on a REAL product design.

Sorry fanboy, Apple used Sony's design, that's extremely clear to all but the most myopic Apple cult member. They had their own staff copy Sony's design for comparisons to their own (awful) design, they even included the Sony logo.

There was no "design" to "copy" when Apple went to work on the iPhone design. Sony DESCRIBED a product design IDEA, and then Apple incorporated that idea as a design element in an ORIGINAL product.

That's how all product design works. And if you don't think so, you're deluded.

Oh, and "weeping" and "crying" are the same thing, unless you have festering open sores.

I have a Samsung SCH-R910 - in fact it does more than the iPhone believe it or not, straight out of the box. But the UI - it looks like the IOS. I find it interesting that they seem to be protesting that it physically looks like the Galaxy Tabs look like the iPad, but the UI is nearly identical on Android based platforms.

We've seen ALL of these devices on Star Trek: TNG. Devices with buttons, devices without buttons, rectangular devices, etc.

Someone should make a smash-up video of all the hand-held computer devices shown in Star Trek:TNG, it would destroy a lot of design patents.

I hate to break it to you but ST TNG is a fictional TV show. They used props made out of painted wood with some plastic pieces and a silkscreened "display" rather than an animated one. Any animation that you saw on screen would have been added later on in post production. They could have easily just used a solid grey rectangle and added everything onto the surface in post but that would have been a lot of work to since most prop PADDs only appeared either on desks in the background or briefly on screen with

Where in the article that you linked, or in any other article, is it spelled out that a nonfunctional item's ornamental design cannot be used as prior art against the novelty of a functional item's ornamental design?

I am unable to find any reference that makes it mandatory for a design patent application to be accompanied with a working prototype in order to merit the protection. Anyways, as far as the design patent goes, the Star Trek tablet provides the some function, so it qualifies for a design patent.

A smartphone is basically a portable computer. We've had computers for ages. Now, how do you get data into a portable computer? The most sensible way is the cell network, so why don't we make these portable computers make phone calls, too?

Okay, so we have a computer. It needs a microphone and a speaker on it, so we can make phone calls. Why not put a camera on it too, since the market has decided that cameraphones are a neat idea.

Okay, how are you going to control your little portable computer? Well, there'

Now, how do you get data into a portable computer? The most sensible way is the cell network

How is that more sensible than by having a bridge from a wireless LAN to the wired network at any place where a portable computer will be used for long periods? That solution leads to the device category once called a "PDA" and now called a "pocket-size tablet" and exemplified by the iPod touch, Archos 43, and Galaxy Player. (If the Nintendo DS weren't locked down, it would have qualified as well.) These too can act as phones using applications that implement VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol).

Now, computer interfaces have long used the paradigm of "show the user shit on the screen and have a device that simulates pointing at the screen called a mouse for the user to pick stuff to do."